Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Dewey Cornell
Susan P. Limber
wo events in 1999 were turning points in the recognition of school bullying as an important societal
problem in the United States. The shooting at Columbine High School was the most notorious of a series of
school attacks that were widely viewed in the press as
actions by vengeful victims of bullying (Dinkes, Kemp, &
Baum, 2009; Fein et al., 2002). Equally important, but less
prominent in the national news, in the same year, the U.S.
Supreme Court (Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 1999) established that schools could be liable for
failure to stop student-to-student sexual harassment. This
far-reaching decision has supported nationwide lawsuits
concerning victims of bullying (Alley & Limber, 2009), as
well as a directive from the U.S. Department of Educations Office for Civil Rights (hereafter Office for Civil
Rights) that certain forms of bullying must be addressed
as civil rights violations (U.S. Department of Education,
Office for Civil Rights, 2010). Since 1999, 49 of 50 states
have passed antibullying legislation (Federal Partners in
Bullying Prevention, 2014). This article examines law and
policy on the concept of bullying at school that stem from
these judicial and legislative developments.
The movement to protect children from bullying represents a historic step forward in childrens rights. In the
past century, laws and policies concerning child labor,
child protection, social welfare, adoption, divorce, and
criminal prosecution, among others, have advanced the
rights of children in the United States. The effort to prevent
bullying promises to extend to children a basic right to
safety already afforded to adults. This movement also
MayJune 2015 American Psychologist
2015 American Psychological Association 0003-066X/15/$12.00
Vol. 70, No. 4, 333343
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038558
University of Virginia
Clemson University
Conceptual Challenges
Bullying is such a broad and omnibus concept that there is
potential for confusion and controversy over its meaning,
severity, and relation with other constructs. The conventional definition of bullying includes three characteristics:
(1) intentional aggression, (2) a power imbalance between
aggressor and victim, and (3) repetition of the aggressive
Editors note. This article is one of six in the School Bullying and
Victimization special issue of the American Psychologist (MayJune
2015). Susan M. Swearer and Shelley Hymel provided the scholarly lead
for the special issue.
Authors note. Dewey Cornell, Curry School of Education, University of
Virginia; Susan P. Limber, Institute on Family & Neighborhood Life,
Clemson University.
We thank Richard Bonnie, David Osher, Jane Riese, Marlene Snyder, Nan Stein, and Craig Wood for their reviews of earlier versions of this
article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Dewey Cornell, Curry School of Education, University of Virginia, 417
Emmet Street South, P.O. Box 400267, Charlottesville, VA 22904-4267.
E-mail: dcornell@virginia.edu
333
Dewey
Cornell
be readily applied and understood. The complications associated with the definition of bullying have led some to
recommend that it would be preferable to focus more
generally on all forms of peer victimization regardless of
power differential or repetition (Finkelhor, Turner, &
Hamby, 2012). However, the moral urgency to stop bullying is based on the plight of a victim who is overpowered
and subjected to repeated humiliation, and there is evidence
that victims of bullying experience more serious adjustment problems than victims of other forms of peer aggression (Juvonen & Graham, 2014; Ybarra et al., 2014). Moreover, to the extent that research indicates that bullying is a
more pernicious and complex form of aggressive behavior,
then specific intervention efforts may be needed (Ttofi et
al., 2011). Our proposed response to this dilemma follows
an analysis of the closely related concept of harassment.
Services, 2013, p. 2). In response to ever-increasing numbers of complaints concerning the bullying of students with
disabilities and the effects of that bullying on their education (p. 1), the Office for Civil Rights issued a follow-up
letter to school personnel 1 year later (Lhamon, 2014) to
reiterate that the bullying of a student with a disability can
result in a denial of FAPE, highlight schools obligations to
address behavior that may constitute disability-based harassment, and explain schools responsibilities to remedy
any denial of FAPE.
Although the federal law protects the rights of students with disabilities (subsequently supported in a 2014
federal district court decision in T.K. v New York City
Department of Education), the Office of Special Education
and Rehabilitative Services authorities also observed,
Bullying of any student simply cannot be tolerated in our schools.
A school where children dont feel safe is a school where children
struggle to learn. Every student deserves to thrive in a safe school
and classroom free from bullying. (Yudin, 2013, p. 1)
American Psychologist
American Psychologist
that may be applied to some bullying behaviors, for example, when bullying constitutes assault and battery or other
criminal acts such as extortion, robbery, stalking, or threatening. However, in recent years, there has been a shift
toward increasing criminalization of bullying (Cascardi et
al., 2014). Seven state bullying laws currently encourage
criminal sanctions for bullying by mandating procedures
for school personnel to report bullying that may violate
criminal law (U.S. Department of Education, 2011). Missouris state bullying law (Mo. Rev. Stat 167.117.1) directs schools to impose sanctions on school staff who do
not comply with reporting requirements.
Another move toward criminalization is the increasing
number of states that have modified existing criminal or
juvenile codes to explicitly address bullying behavior or that
have created new crimes to target bullying or harassment. For
example, North Carolina legislators passed a law that criminalizes cyberbullying (N.C.G.S.A. 14 458.1). Idaho created
a crime of harassment, intimidation, or bullying among students (I.C. 18 917A).
There are multiple concerns with the criminalization of
bullying. First, the concept of bullying may be too broad and
subjective for reasonable application in the criminal justice
system, especially because it encompasses behaviors engaged
in by a large proportion of the population. A national survey
found that 40% of all students reported that they were victims
of bullying in the past couple of months (Wang, Iannotti, Luk,
& Nansel, 2010), and a similar proportion admitted that they
engaged in bullying (J. Wang, personal communication, September 4, 2012). A second concern is that the criminalization
of school misbehavior has been identified as a practice that
leads to higher rates of school disengagement, academic failure and dropout, and ultimately, involvement in the juvenile
justice system (Fabelo et al., 2011; Gonsoulin, Zablocki, &
Leone, 2012; The Dignity in Schools Campaign, 2012). When
bullying is severe enough to constitute one of the traditional
criminal offenses, it can be handled under existing law without creation of a bullying offense, but efforts to expand
criminal sanctions to encompass other forms of bullying are
ill-advised.
Although the content of state antibullying laws has been
evaluated and contrasted, remarkably little research has been
conducted to study how these laws and policies are implemented and to what effect (Institutes of Medicine and National Research Council, 2014). Researchers can take advantage of the heterogeneity of these laws to examine whether
states with more comprehensive and less punitive approaches
achieve greater success. Qualitative studies in schools are also
needed to evaluate how policies are implemented, including
barriers and facilitators in implementation (Institutes of Medicine and National Research Council, 2014).
Recommendations
The General Accounting Office (2012) has emphasized the
need to identify gaps in legal protections for groups who are
most vulnerable to bullying. We agree with this recommendation, but caution that the strategy of using civil rights laws
to protect students from bullying is inherently limited because
MayJune 2015 American Psychologist
students can be bullied for many reasons that do not fall into
any of the conventional categories of civil rights protection. A
more inclusive, universal approach is needed that protects any
student who is bullied.
Despite the fact that nearly all states require the development of school policies on bullying, we know little about
their implementation or effectiveness (Institutes of Medicine
and National Research Council, 2014). School policies must
conform to legal requirements set forth in state antibullying
laws, but should also reflect best practices informed by scientific research. In light of available evidence, we recommend
that school policies on bullying include these core elements:
1. State laws should protect all students from peer
victimization, including harassment and bullying. The concept of bullying should be distinguished from peer aggression and harassment because of research evidence regarding its differential impact and the need for differentiated
prevention and intervention measures. Legislative definitions of bullying should encourage schools to use scientific-based measures and interventions that distinguish bullying from other forms of peer victimization.
2. Students and parents should be educated about
bullying and provided with multiple means of seeking help
for it. Given the reluctance of many children and youth to
report bullying that they experience or witness (Espelage,
Green, & Polanin, 2012; Luxenberg et al., 2014), it is
important that policies include provisions to increase the
ease of reporting, such as anonymous reporting procedures
(U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights,
2010).
3. There should be a prompt and thorough investigation of suspected or reported bullying. As noted by the
Office for Civil Rights, this should include immediate
intervention strategies for protecting the victim from additional bullying or retaliation . . . notification to parents of
the victim or reported victim of bullying and the alleged
perpetrator, and, if appropriate, notification to law enforcement officials (U.S. Department of Education, Office for
Civil Rights, 2010, p. 6).
4. Bullying should not be categorized as a criminal
behavior because it varies so widely in form and severity,
and in most cases, can be handled appropriately with
school disciplinary and counseling measures. However,
bullying behaviors that also meet criteria for illegal behavior, such as assault or extortion, should be dealt with as
deemed appropriate for the circumstances and severity of
the behavior.
5. When bullying behavior constitutes sexual harassment or a violation of civil rights in some other way, school
authorities should be responsive to their legal obligations
(U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights,
2010).
6. Schools should not use zero-tolerance policies that
assign harsh consequences for violations of a school rule,
regardless of the context or severity of behavior. Instead,
there should be graduated consequences for bullying that
are appropriate to the context and severity of the behavior
and characteristics of the student(s) (Kowalski et al., 2012;
341
Swearer, Limber, & Alley, 2009; U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, 2010).
7. School policies should direct school staff to assess
students who are bullied for possible mental health and
academic problems and provide support and referrals for
these students and their parents, as needed. Policies also
should direct staff to provided support and referrals for
students who engage in bullying (Kowalski et al., 2012;
U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights,
2010).
8. School policies should include provisions for training of all staff to prevent, identify, and respond appropriately to bullying. This training would include recognition
of the overlap between bullying and illegal behavior.
9. School policies should encourage the adoption of
evidence-based strategies to guide prevention and intervention efforts. School authorities should be leery of programs
or strategies that are based on emotional appeals with no
supporting evidence of effectiveness.
In conclusion, school policies should reflect best practices informed by scientific research, and so we recommend
greater reliance on evidence-based practices and rejection of
disciplinary practices that are known to be ineffective. Because bullying behavior is so widespread and so varied in
form and severity, reliance on criminal sanctions would be
ill-advised. A strategy that combines education, school-based
interventions, and policy reform leading to cultural change
would seem most appropriate. We urge policymakers and
legislators to affirm that public education is a right for all
students and to recognize that bullying is an impediment to
that right.
REFERENCES
Alley, R., & Limber, S. P. (2009). Legal issues for school personnel. In
S. M. Swearer, D. L. Espelage, & S. A. Napolitano (Eds.), Bullying
prevention and intervention: Realistic strategies for schools (pp. 53
73). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force. (2008).
Are zero tolerance policies effective in the schools? An evidentiary
review and recommendations. American Psychologist, 63, 852 862.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.9.852
Americans with Disabilities Act of 2004, Title II, 28 C.F.R. Part 35
(2004).
Blanchfield, L. (2009). The United Nations Convention on the Rights of
the Child: Background and policy issues. Congressional Research
Service. Retrieved from http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/
134266.pdf
Bradshaw, C. P. (2015). Translating research to practice in bullying
prevention. American Psychologist, 70, 322332. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/a0039114
Boyce, S. G. (2012). The obsolescence of San Antonio v Rodgriguez in
the wake of the federal governments quest to leave no child behind.
Duke Law Journal, 61, 10251066.
Cascardi, M., Brown, C., Iannarone, M., & Cardona, N. (2014). The
problem with overly broad definitions of bullying: Implications for the
schoolhouse, the statehouse, and the ivory tower. Journal of School
Violence, 13, 253276.
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88 352, 78 Stat. 241, (1964).
Connecticut Commission on Children. (n.d.). Bullying. Retrieved from
http://www.cga.ct.gov/coc/bullying.htm
Cornell, D. (2006). School violence: Fears versus facts. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Cornell, D., & Cole, J. (2011). Assessment of bullying. In S. R. Jimerson,
A. B. Nickerson, M. J. Mayer, & M. J. Furlong (Eds.), The handbook
342
of school violence and school safety: International research and practice (2nd ed., pp. 289 303). Mahwah, NJ: Routledge.
Cornell, D., & Huang, F. (2014). Use of peer nominations to identify
victims of bullying. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 526 U.S. 629 (1999).
Dinkes, R., Kemp, J., & Baum, K. (2009). Indicators of school crime and
safety: 2009 (NCES 2010 012/NCJ 228478). National Center for
Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department
of Education, and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Education Amendments of 1972, Title IX, 20 U.S.C. 1681-1688; 34
C.F.R. 106.1 et seq., 34 C.F.R. Parts 106.51106.61 (1972).
Education Department hosts third annual bullying prevention summit.
(2012). Retrieved from http://series.c-span.org/History/Events/EducationDept-Hosts-Third-Annual-Bullying-Prevention-Summit/10737432871/
Espelage, D. L., Green, H. D., & Polanin, J. (2012). Willingness to
intervene in bullying episodes among middle school students: Individual and peer-group influences. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 32,
776 801. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272431611423017
Fabelo, T., Thompson, M. D., Plotkin, M., Carmichael, D., Marchbanks,
M. P., & Booth, E. A. (2011). Breaking schools rules: A statewide
study of how school discipline relates to students success and juvenile
justice involvement. New York, NY: Council of State Governments
Justice Center.
Federal Partners in Bullying Prevention. (2014). State anti-bullying laws
and policies. Retrieved from http://www.stopbullying.gov/laws/
Federal Partners in Bullying Prevention. (n.d.). Misdirections in bullying
prevention and intervention. Retrieved from http://www.stopbullying
.gov/prevention/at-school/educate/misdirections-in-prevention.pdf
Fein, R., Vossekuil, B., Pollack, W., Borum, R., Modzeleski, W., &
Reddy, M. (2002). Threat assessment in schools: A guide to managing
threatening situations and to creating safe school climates. Washington, DC: U. S. Secret Service and Department of Education.
Felix, E. D., Sharkey, J. D., Green, J. G., Furlong, M. J., & Tanigawa, D.
(2011). Getting precise and pragmatic about the assessment of bullying:
The development of the California Bullying Victimization Scale. Aggressive Behavior, 37, 234 247. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ab.20389
Finkelhor, D., Turner, H. A., & Hamby, S. (2012). Lets prevent peer
victimization, not just bullying. Child Abuse & Neglect, 36, 271274.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2011.12.001
General Accounting Office. (2012). School bullying: Extent of legal
protections for vulnerable groups needs to be more fully assessed.
Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-785T
Gladden, R. M., Vivolo-Kantor, A. M., Hamburger, M. E., & Lumpkin,
C. D. (2014). Bullying surveillance among youths: Uniform definitions
for public health and recommended data elements, version 1.0. Atlanta,
GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention and U. S. Department of Education.
Gonsoulin, S., Zablocki, M., & Leone, P. (2012). Safe schools, staff
development, and the school to prison pipeline. Teacher Education
and Special Education, 35, 309 319. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0888406412453470
Graves, F. G. (2008). Restoring effective protections for students against
sexual harassment in schools: Moving beyond the Gebser and Davis
standards. Advance: The Journal of the ACS Issue Groups, 2, 135148.
Green, J. G., Felix, E. D., Sharkey, J. D., Furlong, M. J., & Kras, J. E.
(2013). Identifying bully victims: Definitional versus behavioral approaches. Psychological Assessment, 25, 651 657. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/a0031248
Greif, J. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2006). The assessment of school bullying.
Journal of School Violence, 5, 3350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/
J202v05n03_04
Hatzenbuehler, M. L., & Keyes, K. M. (2013). Inclusive anti-bullying
policies and reduced risk of suicide attempts in lesbian and gay youth.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 53 (Suppl.), S21S26. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.08.010
Holben, D. M., & Zirkel, P. A. (2014). School bullying litigation: An
empirical analysis of the case law. Akron Law Review, 47, 299 328.
Hu, W. (2011, August 31). Bullying law puts New Jersey schools on spot.
The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com
343